NZ Election: Repeal HSW, Revive ACC

Our country and people benefit from our fearless active and adventurous nature. As examples, we invented flying before the Wright brothers, we invented bungy jumping, a Kiwi scaled Mt Everest, the All Blacks are the greatest rugby team on Earth, and our country income and image thrives on adventure tourism. We cycle, hike, hunt, climb, play silly games, swim, explore, DIY, dance and consequently combat issues such as a greater risk of obesity and other such diseases, CO2 emissions, and institutionalised helplessness. Kiwis have always been, are, and should be brave, active, mobile, inventive, and adventurous by nature.

This is all at risk. There are two parts to this story: ACC and the Health and Safety in the Workplace Act.

ACC is (literally) a brilliant idea. Rather than having to find someone to blame and sue to cover expensive medical bills, Kiwis and visitors to NZ can live their lives and have adventures and know that the government will get them back onto their feet and into life again (as much as possible) if they get hurt in an accident. No-one wants to get injured – we don’t go out looking for it – but accidents can happen when you get off your couch, and even sometimes when you don’t, and facing your fears to accomplish something awesome is easier when it does not include both the fear of personal pain and injury and crippling financial debt that could drag down your community as well.

It all comes down to who is going to take responsibility for someone’s injury and rehab costs. If you can’t work because of an injury you can’t make the money you need to pay for it, so you have to look for someone else to foot the bill. If the government isn’t going to do it, people then have to think about who will? Insurance has exclusions for physical or perceived risky pursuits: it is not in their interest to pay out for a possible injury in an activity that has a certain level of risk. While they might pay out if someone drives into you, they most certainly would not be covering you for stock-car racing, unless you pay stupid amounts of premiums.

That leaves litigation. The consequence of America’s system is that people will not give someone CPR when they need it, because if they cause any injury (eg like a broken rib, which can happen) they fear they will be sued for the medical costs. This is a reasonable fear: given the costs of medicine in the US (because doctors have to pay so much in personal liability insurance, because they get sued too), there’s a good chance the injured party will need to find someone to blame to avoid financial disaster. Instead, you could be bankrupted just for trying to save someone’s life. If you have people who rely on your money (eg your family) you would be risking their future for a stranger. Not a good incentive to help, and even less incentive for supplying a product or service that can in any way damage someone (eg a hot coffee http://www.stellaawards.com/) without a comprehensive series of warnings and legal waivers. Blame and fear tears America apart. I think you will agree with me that we don’t want this in NZ.

In my (educated) opinion, ACC has more impact on the Kiwi culture than any other government service (eg education, health and police), and this is why I am so surprised that ACC policy doesn’t even get a mention in most parties’ policies. I decide who to vote for based on their attitude to ACC. The government doesn’t really want the cost, but the alternative, allowing people to sue for personal injury like the Americans do, is far worse. How much is the brave community of NZ worth?

We don’t have the right to sue for our medical costs in NZ: we traded-off the right to have ACC. This means that ACC had better cover accidental injuries comprehensively because we commonly have no further recourse. But instead I see ACC being undermined and no rights to sue being re-introduced.

  • Businesses and sports are being levied according to their risk, which is a disincentive to start a business in anything adventurous. If ACC is a government department, created for the good of the country, paid for by taxes, and enjoyed by all equally, why are some ventures penalised by higher costs? Sure, they might have more injuries, but do we imagine they want these injuries, or get them from being more careless or stupid than people in low risk occupations? Do we imagine that we’d be better off without these occupations? Wouldn’t they already be paying more to attract employees? Wouldn’t the levy be better spent to minimise those injury risks?
  • People are now being denied ACC help when the injuries can be blamed on age and existing conditions. While it may be true that a broken limb or spinal injury might not have happened if the person was younger, or hadn’t had a similar injury in the past, or wear-and-tear, it doesn’t change the fact that the injury would not have happened except for the accident. People are living with injuries and costs from accidents because ACC is judging their claims like a commercial insurance provider, where it is in their interest to not pay out. It is not in the countries’ best interest, however. Do we really want to dis-incentivise older and previously injured people from getting off the couch and into life? Are they really that worthless to NZ?

And then the Pike River disaster happened. Somehow the people who ran the mine were not criminally negligent or otherwise legally responsible, and yet NZ (rightly or wrongly) thought they should be, for justice to be properly served. The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 was passed to law, and WorkSafe Crown Agency created to interpret the requirements to everyday life. The gist of it is, the ‘person conducting a business or an undertaking’ (PCBU) can be held criminally liable if someone is killed or injured whilst participating in the undertaking.

The law and it’s (WorkSafe and layperson) interpretation is having a serious effect on NZ culture. Here is a list of things I have been told about, as someone who does adventure activities:

  1. A kite-boarding teacher shutting up shop because, while they taught safety and had a definite positive motivation for ensuring the safety of the students, they didn’t want to be responsible for the people who didn’t learn fast enough to avoid injury. I’m sure there will be many more such stories. As above, when choosing to help a stranger, why would you do it when there is a risk they could get damaged and destroy your life? There’s a good chance that they were doing enough to satisfy WorkSafe, in the event of an injury, but many people don’t have the time, financial or cognitive resources to study and understand how the new law applies to them specifically, even if they had the inclination. It’s one thing to be willing to patch someone up as a part of your small busy business, and quite another to commit to understanding such heavy legislation and all the implications, and get all the requisite bureaucratic documentation together whenever it’s required.
  2. Schools closing playgrounds and cancelling school camping trips, to protect teachers and supervisors from the legal consequences of a kid hurting themselves. Cotton-wool parenting (Google it – too many studies to list) doesn’t work. If kids don’t have the opportunity to hurt themselves in childhood, they get to their teen lives thinking they can’t be hurt. They also lack physical literacy and resilience, self-confidence and independence, risk assessment skills and good responsible decision making, and opportunities to learn, grow, and earn the trust and respect of their family and peers.
  3. PCBU’s being so freaked out by the Damocles’ Sword of criminal liability they refuse to let risk-based performers do their job… I’ve heard of circus performers being told they cannot do a number of their acts, because of the risk (the risk is what makes it an act!) and in one case a pair of stilt walkers forced to walk half a kilometre around a water feature because the organisers did not want the risk of them walking across a bridge (as if falling off stilts elsewhere is safer). The vast majority of professional circus performers know the risks, and do what they need to to mitigate the risks themselves. Having ignorant PCBU’s dictating or (worse) helping with the safety measures just adds complexity and unknowns to something that is already tricky.
  4. Home businesses having to write up risk assessments and mitigation plans for employees that come to their home – common sense is no longer enough. It is also apparently not enough that the people you are responsible for just sign a waiver – you have to be able to demonstrate that they have been informed of and understand the risks they face and the mitigation of which they need to be aware. We’re holding the bubble-wrap on with rolls of red tape.

We should also keep in mind that there is a theory that adults, when they have reason to believe they can’t be hurt, act with less care and personal responsibility to themselves and others. Legislation that allows people to believe that, in order to protect themselves from legal consequences, a PCBU will have made the activity safe for participants will almost certainly result in the participant taking less care themselves, putting themselves, others, and the PCBU at more risk.

The law was never meant to do this! It was written to ensure that the people behind an incident like Pike River can be made accountable. It was not made to add the fear of explicit legal responsibility for other people onto our shared adventures. It was not meant to undermine the value and liberty we get from ACC by finding someone to blame for our accidents, or cost so much, because while it might incidentally reduce the annual costs to ACC, it will cost businesses around NZ real money in legal and bureaucratic fees and time. It is not supposed to cause conflict between a risk expert voluntarily accepting risk and “reasonably practicable” mitigation and a layperson’s involuntary exposure and perception bias. It is, whether it was meant to or not, destroying undertakings that represent our way of life, heritage and culture.

I will be repealing this law, for the sake of NZ, to enable us all to take responsibility for ourselves on our adventures, and believe in our government safety nets, and bring back our culture of brave, adventurous, fun-loving and caring Kiwis. It would be great if you want to help.

The Serenity Prayer

Facebook reminded me that I wrote this back in 2014… Definitely worth saving, I think

I’ve been thinking about the Serenity Prayer, in relation to current events. A lot of people in my life are motivated to vote, and angry/disappointed with politicians (for lots of reasons). Gvmt level bullshit is something I do not believe I can change (at all – I radically accept that politicians are the worst people to be in control of a country, and yet, they are), but I did vote, mostly cos not to do so is basically a vote in favour of (right wing) conservatism, and I didn’t want to give them the satisfaction.
I do believe I can possibly change things in my smaller communities. I will act to defend people, and their rights and liberties, against the imposition of unjust rules, (formal or implied) traditions and policies we create in our social groups, and that’s where courage becomes an issue. There is commonly no process in place that one can follow to bring the issue to people’s attention and get it addressed in a formal, un-emotive manner. Trying to change something amongst the people you interact with on a regular basis is therefore fraught with difficulties. The people who made the situation (our leaders and bosses) feel threatened in their authority, compassion and intelligence. The people who do not suffer from the thing that needs to be changed commonly don’t see the issue, and fight to keep the status quo. The people who do suffer tend to keep their heads down, because, as the Russians say, it can always get worse, they are already disenfranchised, and they see the flak I get.
Wisdom. I have come to define this as an ability to correctly judge more of the consequences of actions. This comes from experience, if one chooses to learn from experience. I define ethical good as overall positive social consequences. I’m starting to wonder, given my more common failures and the resultant social isolation, if I really do have any ability to cause any policy change in a social group, and if I’m right to try. Should I, on seeing community injustice, just accept that this is what we do to each other, and that the disenfranchised had just better learn to look after themselves? It is definitely right to stand for better social policies IF you know you will succeed, but if you fail you do not achieve much positive social consequence (except maybe giving some validation to the afflicted) and commonly dissent has immediate negative social consequences. If it was law, like changing the laws regarding homosexuality, it will continue long enough to show positive change from building dissent, but these social groups are more ephemeral or, in the case of work, impersonal. Who does have the ability to turn the juggernauts of our leaders’ self-indulgent social privilege and entitlement around? How do they do it? How can we hope to make a better world for ourselves if all we can do is watch as the social groups we value create their own victims?
Gods. Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

via (95) Anna Cruse – I’ve been thinking about the Serenity Prayer, in…

Anarchy for Beginners

Anarchy: absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. (Google definition)

I do not use the word anarchy to describe chaos. That’s a different thing.

I am an anarchist. In other words, I am a romantic, a political idealist, and I believe in liberty, as defined in J.S Mill’s On Liberty, when the only time a person has the right to infringe another’s liberty is in their self defence, or the defence of their community, and only then if the interference is not worse than the offence they are trying to stop.

In my idealistic dreams, we have free speech, and we all respect that, because we know that, even if someone says something that is wrong, misleading or offensive, we need to hear it so we can keep alive the proofs, and not rely on unsupported dogma and fashionable ideas to stop the misinformation and rhetoric. When I was about 20 I met someone who claimed he believed the world was flat. All the trite “proofs” I had that it was, in fact, spherical, he countered happily – no doubt he had heard them before. Because I didn’t know how to prove the Earth was spherical, all I had was the insufficient dogma of my education.

This was a defining moment for me. If we care about the truth of something, we have to know that truth for ourselves, and if it is something that someone else would argue against, we had better know their arguments and the answer for them in advance, or how could we discredit their arguments to our own satisfaction? How could we not allow ourselves to be rationally swayed by their more compelling arguments? There’s a big difference between wanting to believe something is true, and knowing it is true. As Michael Freedman used to say: “Believe nothing, question everything. Discover the truth for yourself.” I studied ethics to know what really made an action right or wrong, and I’m employed as a professional sceptic: a test analyst. (If you don’t believe that’s what a tester is, watch their faces when a dev says “it should work like this…”)

Of course, in reality, this is not how free speech works. Humans tend to be:

  • gullible or lazy – we’ll let others tell us how the world works. This is the legacy of a spoon-fed “education”
  • biased, prejudiced, and disinclined to question things we want to believe
  • emotional and easily stirred to irrational responses
  • attuned to sensationalism, self-interest and scaremongering

So anything said could be believed without question or not properly debated in an equal and open forum.

Anarchy is also about freedom of action, with the qualifier above that people can rightly stop you if your actions interfere with their actions enough. No-one has any right to say what you can and can’t do with your adult self past that. I’ll dress how I like, have sex and form relationships with whomever I want (assuming they want to, as well). I will choose what I read or watch. I’ll imbibe what I want and take my own risks, and from there, I will accept the consequences of these actions. These consequences might include the risk of illness or injury, isolating myself from other people, failure and ruin, but if that’s the risk I’m willing to take, it’s my choice to make. There are complications, of course, like if you have dependants, and when exactly someone is considered adult enough to take those risks, but I dare say that by now I might be considered enough in command of my own faculties to make those decisions.

The consequences of enforcing safety through laws and standards is a vicious cycle of a blithely careless population who do not take responsibility for their own injuries, and a more and more restrictive set of laws to protect them from their carelessness, since no-one else wants to be responsible for them, either. These laws are called “patronising”, but I generally call them “matronising”, as they are far more like how mothers treat their children, keeping them anxious, fearful and dependant for as long as possible. Another term I use is “smother love”. You do not show you care by disenfranchising another of their personal responsibility. You instead make them dependent, needy, and define, reinforce and validate their weaknesses.

Once again, in real life this gets complicated. We live in groups with various rules and laws against our personal autonomy, and some ability to hurt us in the enforcement, and about the most choice we have is which groups we allow to tell us what to do, and whether we obey them or not. I choose to subject myself to the laws of NZ, for instance, and because I don’t want to spend time in prison I don’t get caught breaking them. I have a t-shirt that says “No-one rules, if no-one obeys” and that is always an option. Conscientious objectors have existed throughout human history, and paid the price for their disobedience, but they have also been the ones that have brought about change in the rules.

To me, the strongest weapon of the anarchist is not freedom of speech or action, but the freedom to NOT do what someone expects or orders. I recommend reading And Then There Were None by Eric Frank Russell. It changed my life. The anarchist community of the story had an unbeatable weapon: each had a plaque with the words “I won’t” pressed into it. We, in our Western communities at least, are very good at imposing our will on others. We will order, ask or expect people to do things with no right to do so, no contract or agreement, and no thought that they might say “no”, and we commonly take offence, or are at least surprised if they actually refuse. We also commonly don’t even acknowledge when they do comply with our illegitimate requests. We task each other to establish dominance, we take each other for granted all the time, we assume that they will want what we want and do what we want. Our society accepts this pervasive coerciveness as normal, without comment. We expect polite compliance to our impolite impositions. There are several breeds of people who can’t say “no”, all with their own pathology, and these come about because we want to please and be appreciated by others, and to avoid awkwardness and confrontation.

Learning to say “I won’t” was one of the best things I have done for myself. For instance, unless I choose to for my own reasons, I won’t:

  • Take responsibility for another person’s mistakes
  • Tolerate being treated rudely, unfairly, with disregard or contempt
  • Allow myself to be coerced into a decision or action just because someone has acted in a nice or helpful manner to me in the past. This is a biggie: our ideas of reciprocity don’t apparently allow us to choose how we reciprocate, if it’s not negotiated in advance. Nowadays, unless I know someone very well, and can trust they won’t expect me to do something I don’t want to do, I will ask someone if their contribution is a gift, in which case I will accept it as such, with nothing owed, or I will make explicit my intention to pay them and negotiate the terms to nullify the debt
  • Allow myself to be puppetted by or bullied through my emotional tendencies, for example, desire to be accepted, polite or kind, or by my principles, such as honesty, generosity, friendship or integrity. If someone is using these things to get me to do something that I don’t want to do I will drop it, and pick it up again later, when it’s not longer poisonous. We only keep these things for our self respect, and if they cost our self respect to keep, they are no longer useful. A simple example is when the sleazy Uncle wants to give you a friendly shoulder massage. Are you polite, or do you say no?

Anarchists can have leaders, but they don’t have rulers. We can accept that someone is an authority on some topic, but deny that it gives them authority over us. We choose to cooperate because it is in our own best interests, as social creatures, but we don’t have to. Anarchists should not give orders where they have no right to do so, or dictate how a person should live. They should say “please” when they make a request, and “thank you” after, to show it is a request, and they should accept “no” to a request with no displeasure. They should not coerce, impose or assume compliance. I like being an anarchist – it makes me both free, and a better person to other people.

Inconsistencies , Hypocrisy and Change

via Society of the Guardians – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I was looking at this site to see if I could find links to the articles of the Magic Pentacle, which were produced before the internet. No luck, so you’ll just have to take my word for it that I wrote the article described below 🙂 I’ll just say here that Michael Freedman was a wonderful, intelligent, generous, free-thinking friend, who is missed, 19 years after his death.

The article came about because, at the time, I co-ordinated a group called Pagan Revivalists at the University of Auckland. We hosted a small Pagan gathering out at Awhitu, with people from various paths giving talks and workshops of Pagan interest. I gave a talk about what makes someone a Pagan. It can be quite hard to define. I argued that, in the end, if you call yourself a Pagan you probably are. The discussion then drifted to other topics, including Satanists. I said that some Satanists say they follow Pagan paths, but I thought they were mistaken. Someone who had been paying attention then piped up: “Isn’t that inconsistent? You say a Pagan is someone who says they are a Pagan, but deny Satanists who say they’re Pagans?”

He was completely correct, which I admitted at the time, and said I had to think about it. After we got home I wrote an article for the Magic Pentacle titled Inconsistencies. I don’t remember my focus, but I do remember admitting my mistake, and arguing that Satanists that called themselves Pagans probably are, after all. Nowadays I wear a two-points-up pentacle myself, for a variety of reasons (but not that I am a Satanist). I do not like to be inconsistent in my beliefs. It shows dogma, failure in cognition, possibly due to bias, it’s illogical and commonly irrational, and, if defended, shows personal cowardice or laziness.

These are strong words to use for a minor inconsistency in ones opinion, but consider this: the reason why it is hard for a person to change their beliefs, and the behaviour that comes from that belief, is because we invest pride, self-worth, integrity in the rightness of our actions. If we admit that a personal belief is wrong, we have to admit that all the behaviour that originated from that belief could have been wrong, too. Imagine we were raised to believe a certain group of people are inferior. We will treat them as inferior usually from childhood. By the time we are young adults we are trying to convince other people around us of the rightness of our personal beliefs. If we admit now that we’re wrong, we have to admit that we’ve probably been treating others unfairly all our lives, and that people would have suffered for this. Imagine that realisation comes 10 years later, when we’ve been instilling the idea into our children, or in middle age… It’s far easier to say you’re too old to change than to face the certain knowledge that you have not been the paragon of virtue you thought you were.

So it takes courage to admit your mistake, a willingness to both accept your investments in self-worth through that belief were bad investments, and need to be stopped, and that you will change your behaviour from there. This is not easy – some beliefs are hard-wired through culture and community. They may always return when the guard is down. You may also need to think about reparations, to recover your self-esteem, however they can be given to people you injured.

And then there is a social stigma of being labelled hypocritical: “You used to say that, but now you do this”. In a world of permanent record, anything you publicly say or write can be taken as your defining moment, and any deviation from that is suspect. This may seem a significantly unfair criteria, but I hear it all the time in political news, liberal and conservative, and it is commonly used in communities. From Wikipedia: “Hypocrisy is the claim or pretence of holding beliefs, standards, behaviours, or virtues that one does not truly hold.” Deciding that someone is hypocritical is all about making a subjective judgement in our own favour: someone claims to have some standard that we judge to be noble or ideal (not everyone would) and then they act in a way that we judge someone with that standard would not. Calling someone a hypocrite is just a way of saying you are upset that they no longer seem to support your personal world view. We don’t call them hypocrites if they hold a belief we don’t consider noble, then act in a way we like. We hope, then, that they are changing.

We should recognise that everyone around us, including our public figures, can change, without necessarily being inconsistent or hypocritical. If someone seems incapable of change I would personally be very suspicious – does this person believe they know everything? Do they not challenge themselves to learn new things about the world, which would affect how they respond to it? Are they so dogmatic that no new ideas can seep through? Or are they just acting the part they think others want them to play? How can such a person help make the changes the world needs for us all to escape poverty, or stop global warming, or deal with any new threats, if they always act in the same way? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result (attributed to Einstein, but probably not him). When I was challenged about being inconsistent after making some fundamental belief changes I replied that I will always, consistently, change myself if I come to believe that I can be a better person with that change. That is something that can be relied on. We should hope that our public figures can also be so responsive to the changing world.